- 'An End to the Southern Strategy, But No Post-Racial America' says David Love
- "A Question of Place": An essay on the power of community
- Just Equally Speaking….
- Eagles owe Philadelphia the 8 million it needs to keep libraries open
- who would like to see Verizon offer cable TV in Phila?
- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
Distiguishing between being "Tough on Guns and Violence" and "Tough on Crime"
Submitted by mdcphilly on Wed, 12/27/2006 - 11:20pm.
Today, the Inquirer Daily News had an awesome article even if I thought the theme: Drug Dealers Getting Younger, was somewhat speculative. One of the things that I find dissapointing as Philadelphia gears up for another critical Mayor's race is that many of the issues being discussed are rehashes of political narratives that have not changed in decades. No issue is more tired than proposals to get "Tough on Crime." Being tough on crime may get someone elected but beefing up policing and the criminal justice system in Philadelphia isn't going to improve any neighborhoods or change structural economic flaws.
Simone Weichselbaum, in the Inquirer article, did a great job outlining the formidable challenges that exist. Click read more to see what he wrote:
Forty percent of city residents over age 15 are out of work and not collecting unemployment, according to U.S. Census data. One-quarter of Philadelphians live in poverty, which can be difficult to escape.
Computers have become central to most city businesses, yet too many kids can barely read at the grade level for their age group, said Elijah Anderson, an urban sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania. Four of 10 public-school students never earn a diploma, according to a recent report on Philadelphia's dropout epidemic.
The most illuminating part of the article revealed that despite the obstacles, Philadelphia has plenty of entrepreneurial individuals. It's just that many of them work in vice trades:
When Mikey worked hard, he made more than $1,400 a night. He usually aimed to clock 15-hour shifts, especially at the beginning of the month, when addicts received their government checks.
He bought mostly clothes and fast food with the cash. Not wanting to look like a thug, he typically dressed in preppy clothes such as tapered blue jeans, Lacoste shirts and white Adidas sneakers.
Actually, I'm sure that the nights that Mikey make a ton of money were few and far between but I can guarantee you that if I didn't have a job and if I needed to make a quick dollar, I'd probably be willing to sell drugs too. I know it's a fine line to walk politically, but I'd appreciate if our Mayoral candidates acknowledged the difference between being tough on guns and violent crime and being tough on crime.
Our jails our overflowing with individuals who did nothing worse than try to make a quick buck. Recent evidence indicates that tough on crime policies may actually be counter productive. Rather than upping spending for more police or jails, maybe we should just be more selective in who we arrest. I'm not sure what percentage of individuals in local jails are there solely for drug related offenses but nationally it appears to be about 20%. Philadelphia deserves a smarter policing policy, not a more expensive one.
Props to the People Paper and Philly.com
Bookmark/Search this post with:
smart on crime
A wise man once said, "it's not enough to be tough on crime, you have to be smart on crime."
All these ideas about creating a cabinet level position of something like Commissioner of Public Safety? Forget Timoney. If a candidate wants to be show me they are going to throughly get after violence in the City, tell me they will immediately figure out how to get Seth Williams overseeing what he already would be overseeing if less people were asleep at the wheel: a complete revamping of the Philadelphia criminal justice system.
Amen, Dan and mdc
Tom Ferrick's made interesting suggestions regarding justice system reform, but as soon as I read his call for a Justice System Czar, I immediately thought: That's gotta be Seth!
Great article and links too, mdc.
I probably have more of a stomach for increased or improved policing as part of a crime solution than most progressives. In my years adjuncting at CCP, I talked to a lot of Philadelphians who credited Operations Sunrise and Safe Streets for improving quality of life in their neighborhoods. Was anecdotal, but was pretty consistent.
That said, to really solve youth crime problems, you've got to deal with two sticky issues:
1) Education: keeping kids in the system, performing, learning valuable skills
2) Opportunity: creating jobs, reasons to stay in school, and livable lives afterward
A rise in youth crime means a decline in youth hope.
Keep Philly kids in school, give them more opportunities once they graduate, and crime will go down.
One nitpick
The article was in the Daily News, not the Inquirer. (Even if it's hard to tell online, gotta give props to the People Paper!)
Alright, one more, sorry...
Simone is a woman.
And I apologize for obscuring the important issues raised in this post. My head's just not in the right place, I guess, to weigh the balance between (a) agreeing that by getting "tough on crime" to protect our citizens we're also getting tough on some of our youngest citizens themselves, who in most cases haven't had anything like a fair shake educationally or socially, and (b) feeling that any teenager who has a gun in his or her waistband in order to buy six pairs of sneakers is is a precarious position as far as deserving our sympathy.
If kids have way too few options to avoid this lifestyle, they also have way too few disincentives to choose it from law enforcement and the neighborhood culture. It's a tough place to be. For all of us.
Crime fighting strategy must
Crime fighting strategy must include short, medium and long term/range objectives. Yes, we must invest allowing opportunity to flourish in this city so that people have positive options. These include educational and economic investments. Yes, we must look towards high end criminal investigation in the mid-term.
But, crime is an issue in the present. Presently we have over 400 murders, but more than triple the number of shootings. We, and candidates, would be remiss if we did not use tactics to make streets safe today. We cannot ignore that people live in our city--not just cops and robbers. These people deserve safe neighborhoods, safe schools and safe public transit in the present too. So, I guess I agree--we are in a tough position.
As a person who lives in the present though, I have genuine sympathy for those who believe they have no other options. I was fortunate. During the time that my family dwelt at or around the poverty line during the years after my father passed away, I watched my mother work endlessly and, to some extent, thanklessly to improve our lot--to great success. There are so many women (and men) out there doing the same every day when they could so easily pass into complacency. These are the people I have the most sympathy for, certainly not kids sligging crack outside of the homes of innocents.
There are far too many people trying in earnest to make their lives better to look out for. Violating the law, particularly with a violent offense has no excuse. And while my sympathy and work goes out to all, I only have so much--and I cannot distribute it evenly.
points well taken
Points well taken...sorry, Ms. Simone.
Personally, I'd trade safety for condoning drug sales, but that's just me. How about telling all the drug dealers that they have to have a two-year up and out policy for their young guns. I'd also try to get the drug dealers to invest in some legit businesses or laptop computers instead of the flashy bling. This would all be off the record of course. I have a friend who lived in Cali, Colombia during the 80s and early 90s. The drug lords built malls and public transportation.
I don't care if you don't think I'm politically realistic. Politicians talking about getting tough on crime are in my view unconscionable. They are basically getting tough on 1) people with few options and 2) providing the same lack of leadership that currently exists to Philadelphia voters who should know better.
When Michael Nutter endorsed random gun searches--that struck me as a good idea because it goes after the guns--which are the root of the problem. I'm not arguing thugs with guns should be allow any leeway.
--------
When hope begins to challenge despair, the possibility of change begins.
Thanks, Mdcphilly, for distinguishing between violent crime and
Thanks, Mdcphilly, for distinguishing between violent crime and nonviolent drug related offenses.
We need leaders who will focus on violent crime rather than mass incarceration of those convicted of low-level drug offenses. From my op-ed published in DN on 7/31/06:
The willingness to incarcerate large numbers of people for minor drug offenses is the shame of the baby-boom generation. A generation of young people in the '60s and early '70s experimented with drugs and for the most part did so with impunity.
Many powerful and successful women and men in our society experimented with drugs in their youth. But their careers were not derailed; their families were not torn apart. Sadly, they are now willing to ignore the fact that another generation of women and men are being incarcerated in appalling numbers for drug-related crimes.
To view complete article go to http://philanow.blogspot.com
August archives
Non-violent crime and slinging crack with a 9mm in your pocket
I am reading this thread with interest. I too read the article and found it compelling.
I agree with those who assert that the next mayor needs to have some strategy different from the status quo for creating a safer city. Of course I can walk down my street in E. Mt. Airy and not be shot at, but that truism does not negate the reality that there are in fact streets in Philly where walking around the block late at night (or midday for that matter) is a crap shoot.
I do want to comment on the above post. I respect your opinion and agree with the fact that we have imprisoned far too many people for low level drug offenses, while the true sociopaths in the Mercedes (as described in the DN article referenced at the top of the thread) travel unmolested.
However: To equate the kind of dealing detailed in the article (selling nickel bags to your friend's mom, participating wholesale in the erosion of any semblance of quality of life in neighborhoods) with the kind of experimentation that many adults did as a diversion on their way to a graduate degree, is, I think, inaccurate. It is fair, and safe, to roundly condemn the kind of "non-violent" drug crimes detailed in that article, and not a rejection of progressive principles to assert that it is reasonable to bring the powers of law enforcement to bear on the kind of young men whose crimes are detailed therein.
"Tough on crime" is not the only answer, I agree. But from my vantagepoint, a measured, fair, law enforcement response (can it exist in Philly?) will of course be part of what deters a 12 year old struggling with a variety of choices in his life.
My 2 cents.
$ 700 million economy in Philly
The city of Philadelphia has a $ 700 million economy that under-employed and under-educated young people are told to stay away from. Instead of putting responsible members of the community in regulated charge of that market, to dissuade young people from participating in it America leaves the values, morals and ethics of that market, $ 144 billion nationally, up to the most corrupt, unethical and immoral people in the community; gangsters, addict dealers and social predators who all thrive in the drug trade.
American politicians are supposed to be protecting us citizens from the excesses of economic freedom by regulating, taxing and licensing the anarchy out of markets. Predatory anarchy that is natural to unregulated markets.
America realized this anarchy phenomena in the Roaring Twenties and quickly ended the alcohol prohibition. American politicians will not allow the people to decide about this anarchy. Instead they keep Americans in a state of fear crying out for ever more draconian and unconstitutional criminal laws. Laws that are creating a criminal subculture that is growing not only in Philadelphia but across America. A criminal subculture that is more than 13 million strong and GROWING.
The $ 144 billion annual U.S. black market for drugs is what induces children into addiction and corruption. Not guns. Not even drugs themselves. Ourt politicians, both Republican and Democrat, know the history of prohibition economics in America and yet they impose this prohibition on America. they do so for one reason, RACISM! Drug Busts = Jim Crow by Ira Glasser
The drug war sucks billions of dollars out of poor and mostly minority communities. It disenfranchises poor and minority young people. It offers economic opportunity where there is little else.
At the same time the drug war mass incarcerates and more important, mass disenfranchises mostly minority youth. More than five million. The Bush-Kerry race was decided by 3 million. The Bush-Gore race was decided by hundreds in Florida when Florida disenfranchised hundreds of thousands. Mostly for drugs.
Until American politicians come out against the drug war there is NOTHING that can sbe done to reduce crime, addiction and violence that are simply economic outcomes of an economic policy.
With the record Afghanistani heroin crop now flooding American streets we can expect a surge in crime and violence in the next couple of years that will have all Democrats and Republicans demanding and end to constitutional governance in America. Demanding what Thurgood Marshall called the "drug war exception to the constitution".
The drug war is about destroying the U.S. constitution. Our democracy. At that, and only that, the drug war is a great success.
Violence, guns, drugs...SUCCESS!
Philadelphia violence a policing success story At LeftIndependent blog
" Drug Dealers Getting Younger"
"Drug Dealers Getting Younger"
Can anyone honestly tell me that drug prohibition is keeping drugs out of the hands of children better than if those drugs were sold in a government regulated, licensed and taxed market?
Young drug dealers
The Education in this city is a major problem. And with the school district facing a budget short fall but fiding away to add 400 mor truancy officers what else would you expect. The number hear tell a sad story of the Philadelphia System:
Forty percent of city residents over age 15 are out of work and not collecting unemployment, according to U.S. Census data. One-quarter of Philadelphians live in poverty, which can be difficult to escape.
Computers have become central to most city businesses, yet too many kids can barely read at the grade level for their age group, said Elijah Anderson, an urban sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania. Four of 10 public-school students never earn a diploma, according to a recent report on Philadelphia's dropout epidemic
The only job that hese kids see on a daily base is drug dealing because their parent or more then likely to be on drugs and not to be working. So if they only see that their is one way to make money then that how they are going to make money. A quick fix was rasing the miminal wage in the state but that is not enought.
How much since does it make to hire 400 more truancy to force kids to go to school that are under funded and were they will not obtain a quality education.
So if we improve the education in the city that we at least curb some of the problem but not all of it.
40% unemployed
Really ridiculous statistic. I guess forty percent of city residents over age 15 are out of work and not collecting unemployment, but they include:
High school students not seeking work
College students not seeking work
Retired persons not seeking work
Housewives/househusbands not seeking work
...and the genuinely unemployed... around 6% of us.
6%?
I'm sure 40% is an overstatement, but I guarantee our real unemployment rate here is above 6%. That's about the national average right? And if there's one statistic Philadelphia can buck the averages on, it's that one, yo. give us some credit.
---
BradyDale OnLine
40 Percent Unemployment Rate is Wrong
The 40 percent unemployment figure is not correct. According to this , the unemployment rate in Philadelphia for the population 16 and over from the 2000 census was 15.9 percent. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://stats.bls.gov/eag/eag.pa_philadelphia_co.htm the unemployment rate for Philadelphia was 6.6 percent during June 2006. The discrepancy is based in part on differences in how the rate is determined between the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). In generally accepted and media terms, the BLS figures are used, not the census figures. Philadelphia is number 40 of the top 50 cities in unemployment for 2005 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://www.bls.gov/lau/lacilg05.htm . Clearly the Philadelphia unemployment rate is no where near 40 percent. In poverty rate, we are number one among large cities.
I suggest you ask the writer to clarify.
TO: elp on Mon, 01/01/2007 - 10:19pm
You are obfuscating the issues.
Make sure you are not comparing apples to oranges.
"Forty percent of city residents over age 15 are out of work and not collecting unemployment, according to U.S. Census data."
Labor statistics will not give under 18. It will also not give numbers for people NOT collecting unemployment.
The Writer Can Clarify if They Wish to Do So
While I certainly could be wrong, I was not obfuscating the issues, nor do I believe I was comparing apples with oranges, (nor was I making a fruit salad), nor was my objective to argue with the writer; rather it was to point out what I believe to be a wrong unemployment statistic. I gave my census reference that showed the unemployment rate for the Philadelphia population age 16 and over as being 15.9 percent according to the 2000 census. If someone else including the author has different data and can show where it came from or can point out where my data is wrong or was misapplied I will gladly accept it and thank them for correcting me. The Census Bureau at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/MetadataBrowserServlet?type=subject... explains how they get and use unemployment data. It is possible that the writer arrived at their 40 percent figure by including people that were not in the labor force. This is a separate classification, which is not considered by the Census Bureau as being unemployed or "out of work" and includes students, retired people, homemakers and select other types of individuals. Based on the Census rules and economic theory, if a person is not available to work or has no desire to work they are not unemployed, rather they are not part of the labor force. (To use an analogy, as a male who is not able to get pregnant I am not counted or included in the percentage of non-pregnant Americans as I am not part of the "pregnancy force".) My point with also using the Department of Labor number was to use the commonly utilized unemployment statistic that is the standard for showing unemployment levels as used predominantly by the media, not to state that use of the Census data is a bad use, but that use of the Census data for unemployment numbers is using a statistic that is not used as the norm in calculating or reporting unemployment figures.